Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I mean morals are objective and based on identifiable phenomenon. people may have some disagreement about what constitutes these axioms, but the axioms themselves are objective and not based on some subjective whim that is subject to popular will

Are they not still subject to the whims of the individual?

Originally posted by Deadline
Saying morals are objective?

well, if i follow the same standards of objectivity that exist in science when trying to design moral axioms, how is it not equally, or at least, comparably objective?

"hurting others against their will" really isn't unquantifiable. It might not be as specific as inches and millimeters, but it is certainly something that can be shown and validated independently.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, if i follow the same standards of objectivity that exist in science when trying to design moral axioms, how is it not equally, or at least, comparably objective?

"hurting others against their will" really isn't unquantifiable. It might not be as specific as inches and millimeters, but it is certainly something that can be shown and validated independently.

You could logically argue that might is right and that even if the human race was wiped out it wouldn't matter. I really don't know what thats all about.

I do think that people that genuinely care about fellow human beings and society will tend to agree on alot of issues.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are they not still subject to the whims of the individual?

yes and no

sure, one could just not accept the axioms themselves, as one could just simply not accept certain demonstrable findings of science, but within the system itself, it would be objective.

so like, I can't tell you how quickly humans can perceive features from a visual scene unless we agree on milliseconds as the proper measure. You are able to disagree with this, and totally disregard my thoughts, however, measures of perception in milliseconds are still objective, though the use of milliseconds as a measure is anthropic.

The same would be here. The definition of what is measured in order to determine what is or is not moral would be anthropic (which, imho, is completely appropriate for a concept that deals primarily with human action), but once such an axiom is determined, the results are objective.

Originally posted by Deadline
You could logically argue that might is right and that even if the human race was wiped out it wouldn't matter. I really don't know what thats all about.

well, yes, the strength to enforce a moral order making that order moral would be an objective, if circular, definition of morality.

However, my thoughts are that you would be hard pressed to justify that system over one that looked to suffering or other such measures.

Originally posted by Deadline
I do think that people that genuinely care about fellow human beings and society will tend to agree on alot of issues.

the overlap between people and cultures is such that it is almost impossible morals are "learned"

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, the strength to enforce a moral order making that order moral would be an objective, if circular, definition of morality.

However, my thoughts are that you would be hard pressed to justify that system over one that looked to suffering or other such measures.

the overlap between people and cultures is such that it is almost impossible morals are "learned"

morals are "learned? or is it learnt?

i don't believe morals are learned, no

I believe they generally reflect what are basic cognitive axioms we have built through evolution and epigenetics.

I would argue that even a majority of our moral thinking comes from our genes.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, the strength to enforce a moral order making that order moral would be an objective, if circular, definition of morality.

I dunno some people like anarchy, and whats moral order you enforce is a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by inimalist

However, my thoughts are that you would be hard pressed to justify that system over one that looked to suffering or other such measures.

Your thoughts? You wouldn't be hard pressed at all, you simply argue if you can't stop me then it doesn't matter. You could certainly argue that nothing matters.

Originally posted by inimalist

the overlap between people and cultures is such that it is almost impossible morals are "learned"

Were are you getting this?

Don't get me wrong though I'm all for human rights.

Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno some people like anarchy, and whats moral order you enforce is a matter of opinion.

yes... the is exactly the point i was arguing with Tac

there is a difference between something being objective and something being absolute. Just because it is objective, doesn't mean everyone has to agree. You and I have looked at the objective results of psi research and came to different conclusions. My point is that morality doesn't have to be absolute to be rooted in some form of reality.

I don't get your point about anarchy, but I suppose you are defining anarchy as "everyone does what they want" rather than "no top-down state institution"

Originally posted by Deadline
Your thoughts? You wouldn't be hard pressed at all, you simply argue if you can't stop me then it doesn't matter. You could certainly argue that nothing matters.

well, sure, pragmatically, those who are powerful set the rules. There is no reason those rules have to be moral, and any appeal to "power" as a source of "morality" is going to be weak at best.

going by the perception example I gave to sym, arguing that who is strongest is a measure of morality would be like trying to measure the duration of perception with meters. you might come up with something, but ultimately, the axioms aren't based on anything worthwhile themselves.

Originally posted by Deadline
Were are you getting this?

Don't get me wrong though I'm all for human rights.

cross cultural studies of moral behaviour.

Originally posted by inimalist
i don't believe morals are learned, no

I believe they generally reflect what are basic cognitive axioms we have built through evolution and epigenetics.

I would argue that even a majority of our moral thinking comes from our genes.

Really? I can come up with a bunch of examples.

Actually, no, I think I see where this goes. Honor killing seems to contradict the idea of common moral that "don't hurt people", but to the people who do it, it is a practical, not moral, fact that avoiding honor killings causes harm. Something like that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? I can come up with a bunch of examples.

Actually, no, I think I see where this goes. Honor killing seems to contradict the idea of common moral that "don't hurt people", but to the people who do it, it is a practical, not moral, fact that avoiding honor killings causes harm. Something like that?

that, and I never said such calculations of what is or isn't moral would be easy

is female circumcision wrong because it hurts the child? or right because it ensures her ability to wed and survive in the culture? can financial pressures inform moral decisions, etc.

I don't presume to have any answer to questions that will say what is or isn't moral in every case. However, using harm as a measure, we can at least look at the situation and say, ok, well, its bad that we harm the person, for these reasons, but it is also bad that as a consequence of not harming them, this happens.

The only moral codes that don't have these grey zones are absolute ones, and even then, there can be some fairly serious contradictions or unfortunate outcomes. My thoughts are that an objective, rather than subjective, stance on morality at least gives us a starting point to try and address what the most serious problems are in a situation like what you mentioned, which is much more the point of how I envision objective morals, rather than some attempt to say "this or that IS moral"

^ Y'know i have to agree with Sym. Inimalist I really think you are simplyfing something which is quite complicated.

Not to mention if you grow up in a scoiety or situation that promotes sadism theres a good chance you will be a sadist.

Originally posted by inimalist
that, and I never said such calculations of what is or isn't moral would be easy

is female circumcision wrong because it hurts the child? or right because it ensures her ability to wed and survive in the culture? can financial pressures inform moral decisions, etc.

I don't presume to have any answer to questions that will say what is or isn't moral in every case. However, using harm as a measure, we can at least look at the situation and say, ok, well, its bad that we harm the person, for these reasons, but it is also bad that as a consequence of not harming them, this happens.

The only moral codes that don't have these grey zones are absolute ones, and even then, there can be some fairly serious contradictions or unfortunate outcomes. My thoughts are that an objective, rather than subjective, stance on morality at least gives us a starting point to try and address what the most serious problems are in a situation like what you mentioned, which is much more the point of how I envision objective morals, rather than some attempt to say "this or that IS moral"

Ok if you put it that way. That however doesn't support your argument that morality isn't learnt.

Originally posted by Deadline
^ Y'know i have to agree with Sym. Inimalist I really think you are simplyfing something which is quite complicated.

so to you i'm simplifying, to tac I'm making it more difficult...

Ive never been more convinced 🙂

Originally posted by Deadline
Not to mention if you grow up in a scoiety or situation that rpomotes sadism theres a good chance you will be a sadist.

well, yes, but with the exception of ritual sacrifice, there has never been a society where violence or exploitation of the privileged ingroup has been tolorated. different cultures have disagreed about who deserves to be part of that ingroup, there is almost no disagreement about how that group should be treated

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok if you put it that way. That however doesn't support your argument that morality isn't learnt.

whether an objective, axiomatic philosophy of morality can be produced is much different than whether our core morality (which may not be reflected by our philosophical morals) is a product of genetic or environmental factors (and it is going to be both, no matter what)

Originally posted by The MISTER
If the definitions of words have no meaning to you then you're right the conversation loses it's merit. Deluded is no more of a negative word than ignorant. It would apply to all theists who believe anything they're TAUGHT about God/gods. The ones who came up with their theist beliefs with no teaching, atheism views as incorrect. The ones who are taught are deluded.

Atheism isn't neutral even though atheists may be. Your analogy with the yogurt was a good way to show that. In your analogy you say it sucks that it's definitely NOT ice cream. I said it definitely IS. You go on knowing you have yogurt and I go on knowing I have ice cream. A neutral stance would be, "could be ice cream, could be yogurt, could be steak, but I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. Atheism and theism ARE absolute stances against each other as they are not alive. Atheists and theists are NOT in absolute stances against each other and have room for a neutral ground in that we KNOW that we can't know 100% of everything.

After all is said and done though, after counting theists wrong,(as per your analogy) ATHEISM (not atheists) is completely neutral. It is the doctrine of an existence in limbo.

You should realize that when you attach positivity or negativity to the facts about atheism, you are actually proving that atheists are far more positive than atheism which is what it is.

humans are neutral sometimes, But these terms are locked as opposites in their beliefs.

- I wasn't talking about the subjective nature of language. I don't think theists are deluded, period. I think some theists are, but that's true of any walk of life, and I also don't think that on the basis of their theism alone.

- You're maintaining that theism and atheism are absolute statements, not beliefs. As such, what you're saying is fundamentally incompatible with what I actually believe, and like I said we're not going to accomplish anything with you telling me I am of a position that I'm not.

- You also have your atheist/atheism assessments backwards. No non-sentient thing is positive/negative. Doctrines, facts, beliefs, etc. Only people are (or similarly aware entities). You either don't understand this, or aren't doing a good job of explaining that you do.

- I find all of this amusing, because in this conversation you've repeatedly told me what atheism "is" and I've told you no. I wonder what special knowledge you have as a theist that I don't. I'm no authority, I'm one voice, but so are you, and you're the only one speaking subjectively about something you haven't actually experienced or believed.

- You also didn't address my points that the existence of an afterlife is not by default a good thing. You're assuming atheism's negativity because it denies your personal opinion. Atheism denies a far broader range of possibilities, an infinite number of them unimaginably worse than nonexistence.

Alright, inimalist, I'm having trouble understanding your stance, here. You claim that we have no control over morals? That there is a set morality and that something that is wrong will always be wrong no matter what? But then you claim morals are not absolute? If they aren't absolute, then they CAN change. And who will be the ones changing them? Us, obviously, unless you hold to the existence of some other being that determines morality, which I doubt you do.

So ignoring the labels, you claim that morality can, in fact, be determined by us as a people. So murdering an innocent person isn't actually necessarily wrong, it's only wrong because we as a people have made it wrong.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And these laws are suppose to lay out an objective purpose for the existence of man? These laws tell us how the universe functions. They don't create or place meaning to anything.

EDIT: You could almost think of meaning as a need or want being fulfulled. Like, again, with the watch. The want was that ability to know the time, and the watch was created to fill that need. Thus, it has meaning in it's creation.

But Laws of Nature don't NEED humans to exist, and laws cannot WANT humans to exist, as they would need to be intelligent to want anything. Human's do not fulfill any need or want for the universe. Their existance has no meaning.

Well then no, Atheism doesn't really allow for "meaning". But quite frankly I could live without it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So murdering an innocent person isn't actually necessarily wrong, it's only wrong because we as a people have made it wrong.

Yes, and?

I feel that most morals come down to "would it bother you?" eg Would you like it if someone murdered you or someone you care about? Would you like it if someone stole your property? Would you like it if someone raped you? Would you like it if someone molested you as a child or molested your child?

Most people (ie the majority of a society) would answer "no", ergo, murdering, rape, child molestation and theivery are wrong and therefore outlawed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So ignoring the labels, you claim that morality can, in fact, be determined by us as a people. So murdering an innocent person isn't actually necessarily wrong, it's only wrong because we as a people have made it wrong.

What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by TacDavey
So ignoring the labels, you claim that morality can, in fact, be determined by us as a people. So murdering an innocent person isn't actually necessarily wrong, it's only wrong because we as a people have made it wrong.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright, inimalist, I'm having trouble understanding your stance, here. You claim that we have no control over morals?That there is a set morality and that something that is wrong will always be wrong no matter what?

sort of. I think all your asking me to say is that my morals aren't absolute, as in, I don't think the universe has any inherent morality and that all such morality, objective/subjective/absolute/etc, is anthropic, sure, yes.

At some ultimate point, humans are the ones who would be using objective methods to derive morals from core axioms.

However, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your statement. We don't really have control over our morals, so much as we have the ability to decide what we think the best axioms might be.

You could think equality is a more important axiom than volunteerism, or I could think individualism is better than reducing harm, or whatever. This would be the only "subjective" part of how I look at things, and even then, I think all but the most solipsistic definitions of "morality" already give us a fairly good idea of what axioms we should choose, and I believe evolution has engrained others into our cognition. Long story shory, this is hardly "subjective" in the way "subjective morality" is defined.

However, we don't have a lot of control over the morals that come from these axioms. Like I said before, the two most important ones to me are a measure of personal harm and consent. From those axioms, I have no choice but to see murdering an innocent as wrong, and regardless of how many people might agree with it, the act of killing is wrong. So ya, my tldr about why I don't specifically disagree with you, lol...

Originally posted by TacDavey
But then you claim morals are not absolute? If they aren't absolute, then they CAN change. And who will be the ones changing them? Us, obviously, unless you hold to the existence of some other being that determines morality, which I doubt you do.

The morals can't change. Unless it is discovered that killing innocent people is either harmless or consentual, it is immoral. Unless something happens, to me, as a person, that makes me want to change how I evaluate the axioms I base my morality from.

However, I can't imagine you would agree that the fact you could change religions means your morals aren't absolute. It is the same principle (changing the underlying basis upon which morals are founded)

Originally posted by TacDavey
So ignoring the labels, you claim that morality can, in fact, be determined by us as a people. So murdering an innocent person isn't actually necessarily wrong, it's only wrong because we as a people have made it wrong.

Based on what the term "morality" is supposed to convey, that is, the way to correctly interact with people, and given that the actual truth of any absolute principle can't actually be proven without God/whatever revealing itself to us, the only scale that makes any sense upon which to judege the morality of our actions is one that is grounded in objective observation of the consequenses and motivations of our actions.

Again, derived from the definition of morality itself, and based on what appear to be not only cross cultural, but also cross species constants in group behaviour, there are some very basic principles to morality that we can suppose that I believe it would be very hard to argue against. Things like the suffering of innocents being bad, equality being good. We would all have our own core values, to be sure, but there are some so basic, we include them in our lists of symptoms of mental disorder. We don't look at torturing an animal as a "different idea about morals", we know it to be wrong, and the people who don't see it as such are justifiably labeled as psychopaths. This requires no absolute power, just the simple aknowledgement that all organisms share some common experience of the universe. I honestly do think it comes down to our biology to feel this way.

So yes, it is "wrong" because people have made it "wrong" because "wrong" is an anthropic concept in the first place in a non-absolutist universe, as I have made clear, I'm not a moral absolutist